Monday, October 17, 2016

THAILAND - The lost kingdom

Leaves behind a kingdom living in aura of a monarchy that has failed to
drive the nation forward or deal with modern reality

The
passing of King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand on 13 October 2016 left many
Thai people and much of the entire kingdom in shock and despair.

Newspapers
and magazines faded into black and white. Thousands came out on the streets
crying hysterically as they held the portraits of their king-god.
Although the King’s frail health and prolonged hospitalisation should have
provided time to prepare for the succession, the kingdom’s lèse majesté laws
have prevented any open discussion about the transition.

The
personality cult that has evolved around King Bhumibol also means that most
Thais have long been in denial about his mortality. Indeed, while this King was
truly a great father of contemporary Thailand, his demise should also serve as
a wake-up call for a more objective analysis of the roles that the royal
establishment plays, directly or indirectly, in shaping the Thai political
culture that has led to the current authoritarian regime in a country once
known for its blossoming democracy and vibrant society.

From
outside looking in at the outpouring of grief and the display of intense love
and reverence to this ‘royal father’ (or ‘por luang’, as he is referred
to by most Thais), one wonders why this king is so immensely loved and ardently
revered. Most Thais will testify for his good deeds and incomparable
benevolence—his modest lifestyle without ostentatious display of wealth or
extravagance also boosted his infallible popularity and blamelessness.

However,
few Thais will bear to be reminded that this king also ruled over a country where
any criticism about him or any family member, no matter how slight or rational,
is absolutely forbidden and immediately punishable with a harsh prison
sentence. Most Thais have grown up hearing and seeing only good things
about him, as those are the only things they are allowed to hear and
see.

And given
that social sanction and pressure against those who refuse to show excessive
outpouring of love and respect is so severe, the public imagination in Thailand
has been abnormally limited and unnaturally constrained, not unlike the way
propaganda is used in North Korea to ‘keep the country unified’ under the
‘dear, beloved leader’.

Also,
given the length of his 70-year reign, most living Thais have never known or
understood the history prior to his coronation, including the mysterious death
of his elder brother, King Rama XIII, and the series of coups and rebellions
that undermined the country’s nascent parliamentary democracy in 1940s.

Indeed,
King Bhumibol was such a central and spiritual figure that Thailand has learned
so little about its own history and how to strengthen political institutions to
carry the nation forward without over-attachment to a mortal man. In school,
Thai children are taught very little national history, let alone the political history
of how and why prostration and kneeling when in royal audience has been
reinstated, even though this medieval custom was abolished by King Rama V, who
died in 1910.

Another
little known fact that is never openly taught or discussed in this kingdom lost
in medieval times is how and why Thailand’s national day was changed from 24
June, the day when, in 1932, the kingdom’s system of government changed from
absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy, to 5 December, which is the
birthday of King Bhumibol. As history tells us, having a mortal man’s birthday
as a national day is hardly a good idea; when the person dies, the whole nation
plunges into an identity and existential crisis, like what Thailand is facing
today.

Before
the reign of King Rama XIII (Ananda Mahidol) and King Rama IX (Bhumibol
Adulyadej), Thailand’s monarchy was at its weakest period due to dwindling
finances resulting from the extravagances and the sprawling family trees in
previous reigns. The People’s Party (Khana Radsadon), a group of
reform-minded military and civilian figures inspired by Western liberal
democracy and nationalist agenda, managed to weaken and contain the monarchy
within constitutional confines in the 1932 Siamese Revolution, when Thailand
could have become a republic.

Unfortunately,
the People’s Party’s infighting and the threats of communism, combined with the
surging royalism and right-wing movement, led to the declining influence of
Western-minded liberal reformists. This gave rise to ultra-nationalist
royalists that puppeteered and derived power from the royal institution they
deliberately strengthened through mass psychological manipulation. From then,
the King and his armies became Thailand’s indestructible pillars, cultivating
public subjugation through a combination of fear and worship.

The
result, as we see today, is a kingdom lost in time, where patronage culture
chokes political development and ancient customs are stringently enforced. The
late King of Thailand may have done many useful and good deeds and deserved
respect, but he also sat atop the country’s patronage pyramid without changing
it, despite being the only one who could have done so through his unparalleled
clout.

By
staying aloof and beyond politics, the Thai royal institution therefore did
little to change the culture that perpetuates social inequality. Instead, it
has accumulated wealth, power, prestige and divinity by projecting an image of
charity and dedication to the poor and the underprivileged, while doing little
to address the true causes of poverty and inequality—the patronage system, the
culture of impunity, and the curbing of civil and political rights.
Effectively, the Thai monarchy has, intentionally or not, colonised Thailand
internally and kept the tacit repression intact.

King
Bhumibol left behind a legacy not easily matched by other royalty. Yet, the
fact that he did not modernise his court or abolish antiquated royal customs
has also left Thailand largely unable to grapple with modern reality. The
ubiquitous display of extreme reverence to King Bhumibol, fused with the
nationalist narrative against any valid questioning or rational discussion
about the monarchy in Thailand, should be seen as an unhealthy and worrying
symptom of a nation brainwashed by decades of propaganda, rather than viewed
lightly as citizens simply loving their king. Thai people must learn to see
themselves and their society structurally through historical lens, not as
subjects under one merciful, mortal god.

Now, the
kingdom is in mourning and in fear of what the new reign will bring. With the
96-year-old former strongman prime minister appointed as regent pro tempore and
the crown prince’s coronation still unannounced, Thailand’s limbo is prolonged
and the mass anxiety may grow and exacerbate existing political tension along
conservative and progressive lines. Only one thing is certain, the new reign is
unlikely to bring the psyche of Thailand any closer to modernity.

Thailand
may continue to develop economically, but its political evolution and
democratic progress are likely to be arrested and lost in time unless the
country’s lèse majesté laws are reformed. If internal pressure fails to achieve
critical mass, external pressure needs to mount for Thailand to be saved from
itself.